Indiana

Where it becomes political is how the left and right approach government.

The left thinks: what can government do to help the community? Data says banning turning on red reduces harm and fatalities to pedestrians!

The right thinks: This new law is an inconvenient change for me. The government is in my way! (Although not in this case, they also tend to think: and I have to pay for it?)

So you're saying officials making something not political into something political?

I've definitely seen people do things against common sense because of their party.

Drinking bleach is dangerous...
DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! 😆

This sort of thing should not be a left-right / progressive/conservative thing at all. Data says it prevents harm. Easy.

Conservatism is all about causing harm so this is absolutely a political issue.

Honestly, "data-driven" is not enough, and no amount of signs will substitute for physical obstacles. Signs and "enforcement" are literally the pass-the-buck option for lawmakers, particularly in a city and state where the car-centric perspective took root early and deep.

It's extra-stupid, because Indy already has a lot of skywalks. They could expand that area with more skywalks and dedicated bike lanes(those streets are extra-wide as well, so bike-lanes with a curb or sidewalk between them and cars should be an option, as well as making the remaining car lanes squiggly)(hell, remove all but handi-capped parking while at it), or they can ban motor vehicles from tragetted areas entirely. The people who can't be bothered to walk, bike or ride mass-transit in aren't the target demographic, and allowing them to speed through won't change that.

Two other less-than-full, but still more effective than signs, measures are roundabouts or implimenting a full-intersection cross-walk cycle, where all the traffic lights switch to red to allow pedestrians and bikes to cross every which way. Make the pedestrian state last as long or longer than the total of all green-light states as well. Cars are the parties violating the space of others in these places, and should be forced to realize it.

@benfulton @redfox @FlyingSquid

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198223000696?via%3Dihub) helps to explain why right-on-red is so problematic. The authors examined people’s behavior behind the wheel, concluding that “at red-light turns, driver attention was heavily skewed toward leftward traffic.” The dangers of that orientation are obvious, especially since a “Walk” sign could be inviting pedestrians and cyclists to cross in front of the turning car.

@benfulton @redfox @FlyingSquid
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/17/right-turn-on-red-light-ban
"Turning right on red was only legal in a few states until the 1970s, when the federal government, facing an oil crisis, told states to allow it – or lose their energy funding. The idea was that cars would use less fuel if they avoided sitting at red lights. That law remains in place, despite 1984 research showing that at intersections allowing right-on-red, crashes jump 23%, pedestrian crashes increase by 60%, and cyclist crashes double.

@redfox @ilinamorato Any chance you could take the red line instead of driving? It might be cheaper and less frustrating.

As a commuter, I hate the parking limitations and costs.

I mean, I get it. But parking destroys downtowns by replacing destinations with car storage, which pushes the destinations further apart, which reduces the number of people who can walk to the destination, which requires more car storage. It's a vicious cycle that can absolutely destroy downtowns, and has in a lot of places. So it's bad for commuters, too. Just less visible.

If I was a resident, I would hate people meddling in city business. Pretty easy to happen since state legislation is there.

Yeah, it's awful. And it keeps happening: Indianapolis votes for a thing. Freeman gets a bee in his bonnet about it—even though he doesn't live here—and thinks he can makes some noise with it. Freeman gets the other Republicans to sign on to it, and invalidates the will of the people who actually live here. Then he takes a victory lap while the residents have to live with his meddling.